Occam's Razor is always about the simplest explanation that WORKS. Quantum mechanics has been shown to work. Other things fail to explain stuff that QM explains. No violation.
Technically speaking, all that Occam's Razor really does is that it forbids you to "multiply" unknowns or "guesses." Which is why I tend to not believe in Intelligent Design Creationism or Young Earth Creationism. I cannot actually
disprove IDC or YEC but Occam's Razor can cut away the excess. (I'll save the formalities for a different time.)
QM is essentially a probability-averaging viewpoint of the whole world. At the sub-micro level, things occur based on probability. At the micro level, we can see how things acting individually can nonetheless act in apparent if not conscious concert so that the sum of their actions looks like a uniform action. At the macro level, we cannot see the micro level and as a result, just think of monolithic forces.
Look near the end of this link to see a somewhat mathematical derivation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
Another mathematical derivation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node65.html
This video takes it more graphically:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ry/ideal-gas-laws/v/ideal-gas-equation-pv-nrt
The point here is that QM is a statistical viewpoint. Analogous to the way we see matter, the Khan Academy video gives a picture of how micro-level individual atomic movement of gas molecules leads to the macroscopic principle that is the basis for an internal combustion engine - hot gases push harder! A similar concept at the QM level makes us think that matter is solid when in fact we know that it is mostly empty space.
To say that QM seems inconsistent with Occam's Razor, you FIRST have to demonstrate that another explanation besides QM is simpler but just as accurate in describing or predicting behavior. And it is that "other explanation" that is so elusive. That is why QM is NOT inconsistent with Occam's Razor.
